Go to page

Go to page

Club Legend

Paying dropping the ball would go a long way to reduce congestion. Would reduce crowds around the contest scrambling once the ball comes loose. A free kick would mean the ball pings around the field more rather than getting stuck in one spot

I can't see the game reverting because of reduced interchanges. If a team played to their traditional positions against the more fluid positions from the modern game they wpuld get pumped. Players will just get fitter and fitness will be a major attribute looked at in draftees. This will mean more skilled players that aren't as fit will miss out. Guys like Sam Mitchell and the likes

Draftee

There are plenty of ways to reduce congestion in football. .....Sadly the current proprietors are not inclined to invoke them. Kevin Bartlett is 100% right in his quest to eliminate interchange. ......But that alone won't be enough. ......The worst species of self-important, job-protecting, disingenuous arseholes (the coaches ) can, and will find a way around that. .......How about 16 a side.......No interchange. ......No boundary throw-ins (last player to touch the ball concedes a free kick ) , One poorly dressed Collingwood supporter to be crucified at half-time. ....The potential for fun is endless. .....

TheBrownDog

There are plenty of ways to reduce congestion in football. .....Sadly the current proprietors are not inclined to invoke them. Kevin Bartlett is 100% right in his quest to eliminate interchange. ......But that alone won't be enough. ......The worst species of self-important, job-protecting, disingenuous arseholes (the coaches ) can, and will find a way around that. .......How about 16 a side.......No interchange. ......No boundary throw-ins (last player to touch the ball concedes a free kick ) , One poorly dressed Collingwood supporter to be crucified at half-time. ....The potential for fun is endless. .....

And in the so called golden age. Teams got three goals up and hit the boundary line in a glue pot mud bath. Intentionally so it seems in the case of moorabbin
They've always sought to minimise risk with negative play

Norm Smith Medallist

All it does is give 72 players not good enough to make the first 18 80% game time each week while people complain that theres too many teams and not enough talent. Well why not get these guys off the field and have the best players play the whole game.

You just need to cover for injuries and you pretty much never see more than 4 for a team in a game.

Club Legend

Increasing interchange numbers have directly correlated to increasing congestion. It's not hard to work this one out. We don't need zones we just need interchange reduced to no more than 40 per game. Players will tire just a tad more and the quicker movements from contested plays with more kicking will require a reintroduction of positional play and one on one contests that we all love. You won't have the issue with prior opportunity or incorrect disposal because gang tackles and players locked up immediately they touch the ball will reduce proportionately.
The football of the late nineties and early 00's was a beautiful mix of skill, endurance and aggression. Interchange was below 40. Just sayin. The abuse of interchange has been the greatest threat to the game in its existence. The lack of differentiation between Soccer, the use of Soccer tactics and Basketball zones, has left us with an increasingly generic product. Ring a ring a rosie handballathons are just plain boring.

Club Legend

I've now come to the conclusion the only way we can save this game and too open it up is to reduce the interchange to 15 a side per game. Yes teams will flood early as a tactic however Geelong came up with a brilliant game plan in 07 to get through the flood and it was some of the most exciting footy ever seen. I just hope someone in the AFL has the balls to do something because this congestion around the footy is a blight on our indigenous game and needs to be stamped out. This tackle and handball-a-thone is starting to look like a very ugly game of soccer mixed with Rugby.

Norm Smith Medallist

I've now come to the conclusion the only way we can save this game and too open it up is to reduce the interchange to 15 a side per game. Yes teams will flood early as a tactic however Geelong came up with a brilliant game plan in 07 to get through the flood and it was some of the most exciting footy ever seen. I just hope someone in the AFL has the balls to do something because this congestion around the footy is a blight on our indigenous game and needs to be stamped out. This tackle and handball-a-thone is starting to look like a very ugly game of soccer mixed with Rugby.

- allow players to dive on the ball again to knock it forward
- allow the third man up to spike the ball forward out of congestion
- stop deeming any kick to the boundary as a deliberate
- remove a deliberate rushed behind with exception of obvious ones like the Guerra style kick-in, kick back over

Wondering why the deliberate rules have caused the current mess? It's left defenders with few tools to defend with, so coaches send all players down there to clog it up to defend.

- allow players to dive on the ball again to knock it forward
- allow the third man up to spike the ball forward out of congestion
- stop deeming any kick to the boundary as a deliberate
- remove a deliberate rushed behind with exception of obvious ones like the Guerra style kick-in, kick back over

Wondering why the deliberate rules have caused the current mess? It's left defenders with few tools to defend with, so coaches send all players down there to clog it up to defend.

I think the deliberate rushed behind and out of bound rules is good for the game, it reduces teams playing negatively so they can set up their structure. The AFL isn't the only sport having issues with congestion and negative game plans,the NHL have started to trial 3 on 3 during the all star game to in courage higher score and free flowing play. Now what do the AFL and NHL have in common they both have a high number of interchanges.

Norm Smith Medallist

I think the deliberate rushed behind and out of bound rules is good for the game, it reduces teams playing negatively so they can set up their structure. The AFL isn't the only sport having issues with congestion and negative game plans,the NHL have started to trial 3 on 3 during the all star game to in courage higher score and free flowing play. Now what do the AFL and NHL have in common they both have a high number of interchanges.

There is some truth here, but the coaches have pursued congestion for quite a while now. It is not just these rules. To my mind, the out on the full rule was all that was needed to deal with deliberate out of bounds. A free kick for a kick that goea 50m downfield and then out is ridiculous.

Rushed behind rule changes have been a dopey response to the Hawthorn grand final tactic. All that was needed was a tweak that stopped players backing through the posts if they didn't like their options. Now we have a complete distortion of the game atround the goal face.

Dropping the ball has gone back to last year's interpretation, with barging through tackles again acceptable. For just a few games this year, they had it right, but whoever instructs the umpires went to water and took us backwards again. I don't know how the umpires stand it.

Brownlow Medallist

There is some truth here, but the coaches have pursued congestion for quite a while now. It is not just these rules. To my mind, the out on the full rule was all that was needed to deal with deliberate out of bounds. A free kick for a kick that goea 50m downfield and then out is ridiculous.

Rushed behind rule changes have been a dopey response to the Hawthorn grand final tactic. All that was needed was a tweak that stopped players backing through the posts if they didn't like their options. Now we have a complete distortion of the game atround the goal face.

Dropping the ball has gone back to last year's interpretation, with barging through tackles again acceptable. For just a few games this year, they had it right, but whoever instructs the umpires went to water and took us backwards again. I don't know how the umpires stand it.

I think prior opportunity should stay but in saying that you either cop the tackle or dispose of the ball legally. If the ball is legitimatly knocked free without prior opportunity then also play on.

But if you get tackles with or without prior opportunity and do not legally dispose of the ball then reward the tackle. That's what they started paying early on this season and it was spot on the correct interpretation.

Don't listen to the nuff nuff bias commentators whinge when their teams get called out against rivals. You either take the tackle with no prior and ball up but if you just drop it, throw it and illegally dispose of it then you are penalised.

Club Legend

Interesting topic on hungry for sport this morning with the buzz. With KB suggesting we should have a team prior opportunity when holding the ball to help open the game up, also the buzz brought up a comment about mark Bickley who talked about the sanfl saying the games are more free flowing in the sanfl then they are in the AFL as the have a reduced interchange which is 50 and last touch rule.

Agreed. For all the discussion about the interchange cap beforehand it's getting ver little scrutiny now

I get that some are arguing for a further reduction but is there a skerrick of objective evidence the current cap has worked?
Surely proponents need to prove their case before another change happens or will it be done under cover of darkness?

For mine it hasn't worker. There's still the same people complaining about congestion

Club Legend

Agreed. For all the discussion about the interchange cap beforehand it's getting ver little scrutiny now

I get that some are arguing for a further reduction but is there a skerrick of objective evidence the current cap has worked?
Surely proponents need to prove their case before another change happens or will it be done under cover of darkness?

For mine it hasn't worker. There's still the same people complaining about congestion

That's because they made a soft cap of 90 interchanges. If they were really serious about removing congestion they would capped it a very low number. Before 2007 teams would average 40 interchanges a game at most and before 2004 it was 15 to 20 interchanges at most.

Hall of Famer

There are plenty of ways to reduce congestion in football. .....Sadly the current proprietors are not inclined to invoke them. Kevin Bartlett is 100% right in his quest to eliminate interchange. ......But that alone won't be enough. ......The worst species of self-important, job-protecting, disingenuous arseholes (the coaches ) can, and will find a way around that. .......How about 16 a side.......No interchange. ......No boundary throw-ins (last player to touch the ball concedes a free kick ) , One poorly dressed Collingwood supporter to be crucified at half-time. ....The potential for fun is endless. .....

Yep, the coaches have always been the problem. The moment a new rule is introduced to help the game, they are busy working on a way to abuse it. Albert Einstein once said any fool can complicate something but real genius is being able to simplify it. Coaches work so hard at negating other coaches that the game has become over-complicated without necessity. Make the game easier to watch, and the game will be better for it.

TheBrownDog

That's because they made a soft cap of 90 interchanges. If they were really serious about removing congestion they would capped it a very low number. Before 2007 teams would average 40 interchanges a game at most and before 2004 it was 15 to 20 interchanges at most.

Rookie

The game is now a congested unsightly mess, looking similar to what it did on a wet, windy day in the sixties. Unless the AFL deals with this, the prospects for the game are poor.
The culprits are the coaches. They want to control play, and numbers around the ball is their answer.
The tool that lets them do this is the interchange. Players are able to run very fast to clog up play, and get a rest before they have to do it again.
If the coaches can't be made to give up repeated interchanges as a tactical tool rather than the injury management tool it was introduced as, then the AFL will have to change rules to spread the players out.
To minimize the lines on the field, but maximize their effect, I suggest that the following is considered.
1. Extend the end lines of the centre square to the boundary.
2. Require each team to have a fixed number of players within the section of the field with the goals whenever there is a bounce or boundary throw in. 6 each would be good. Fewer might work.
3. Boundary umpires act as line judges for this.
4. If a team transgresses (not enough players in its end zone, be they attackers or defenders), then the bounce or throw in is moved to the square extension that favours their opposition. No free kicks involved, just loss of territory.
5. Outside of stoppages, players may be wherever they like.
6. No particular players have to be in the end zones, only a minimum number.

The future of the game is under threat from within. The solution above may not be the answer, but something drastic is required or defensive tactics will strangle the game as a spectacle. Fewer players is probably not the solution, as they will still all be clustered wherever the ball is.
Copyright Cleomenes

Rookie

Pretty simple really. No need for anything more than umpires recognising that an above the shoulder contact applies squally in the horizontal position as the vertical. Players making contact with the ball holders head should be penalised. That will prevent mauls and packs... one free kick for that in the first five minutes of play would sent a message.

Club Legend

It shows how congestion went up over 10 years in correlation with the interchange number dramatically increasing. It also tells me you're either ignorant or delusional to state of our game currently on a visual level.

TheBrownDog

It shows how congestion went up over 10 years in correlation with the interchange number dramatically increasing. It also tells me you're either ignorant or delusional to state of our game currently on a visual level.

I said the proponents for a further interchange cut need to prove from this seasons figures and anectodal evidence how the current cut has worked. If the congestion is happening, then theres an argument to say it hasn't worked.

An argument that it needs to be cut further to work without even an indication in any form whatsoever the current cut has worked is just impractical ideology